Sikander v. Ravinder Singh & Ors.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,81,303/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 25th July, 2005 resulted in fracture of both the legs of the appellant. The appellant‟s right leg below knee was amputated. The appellant remained in hospital from 26th July, 2005 to 28th August, 2005, 29th August, 2005 to 13th October, 2005 and 23rd October, 2005 to 2nd November, 2006. 2010:DHC:1914

3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,846/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet, Rs.15,224/towards loss of income during treatment and Rs.2,19,233/towards loss of earning capacity. The total compensation awarded is Rs.2,81,303/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The compensation for loss of income be awarded for a period of one year.

(ii) The compensation for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability be enhanced.

(iii) The compensation for pain and suffering be enhanced.

(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of amenities of life and disfiguration.

5. Vide certificate dated 18th November, 2005, the permanent disability of the appellant was assessed by LNJP Hospital to be more than 40%. The appellant examined the witness, namely, Ms. Rita Mehta, Medical Social Worker who deposed that as per the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, the permanent disability suffered by the appellant was 60%. However, since the Board constituted by LNJP Hospital has not specified the exact percentage of disability, vide order dated 10th November, 2009, the Medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital was directed to determine the exact of permanent disability suffered by the appellant. In pursuance to the above order, LNJP Hospital constituted the Board which again examined the appellant and issued a fresh disability certificate dated 4th January, 2010 in which permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed to be 80% in relation to both lower limbs. The appellant was a fruit vendor and the loss of earning capacity of the appellant is taken to be 55% in respect of the whole body. The Claims Tribunal has taken the minimum wages of Rs.3,044.90 to compute the loss of earning capacity. However, the Claims Tribunal has not taken the increase in minimum wages due to inflation and rise in price index into consideration in terms of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Kanwar Devi vs. Bansal Roadways, 2008 ACJ 2182, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Renu Devi III (2008) ACC 134 and UPSRTC vs. Munni Devi, MAC.APP.No.310/2007 decided on 28.07.2008.

6. Following the aforesaid judgments, the income of the appellant is taken to be Rs.4,567/- [(Rs.3,044.90 + Rs.6,090)/2]. Taking the income of the appellant to be Rs.4,567/-, applying the multiplier of 15 and taking the loss of earning capacity as 55%, the loss of earning capacity of the appellant is computed to be Rs.4,52,133/- [55% of (Rs.4,567 x 12 x 15)].

7. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,224/towards loss of income for five months. The appellant remained under treatment for about one year and, therefore, the loss of income for one year is enhanced from Rs.15,224/to Rs.54,804/- (Rs.4,567 x 12).

8. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/towards pain and suffering. No compensation has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life and disfiguration. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal (2008) ACJ 1300, where this Court examined all the previous judgments with respect to the non-pecuniary compensation awarded in the cases of permanent disability and held that the Courts have been awarding about Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of non-pecuniary damages for amputation of leg with permanent disability of 50% and above. The findings of this Court are reproduced hereinunder:- “17. From the aforenoted judicial decisions, a trend which emerges is that between the years 1985 and 1990, the courts have been awarding about Rs.3,00,000/- under the head „non-pecuniary damages‟ for amputation of leg resulting in permanent disability of 50 per cent and above.”